Allahabad High Court
Ankit Saxena vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 19 September, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64834 Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10391 of 2023 Applicant :- Ankit Saxena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shakti Kumar Sharma,Jatin Raheja,Nishikant Srivastava,Shobhit Harsh,Shrikant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Saxena Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The applicant-Ankit Saxena has approached this Court by means of the instant application challenging the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-1, Lucknow (in short "Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1140 of 2022 (Vartika Saxena vs. Ankit Saxena), instituted under Section 125 CrPC.
By the impugned order dated 14.02.2023, under challenge, the Trial Court decided the application seeking interim maintenance.
As per order impugned dated 14.02.2023, the applicant at relevant point of time was serving as Senior Software Engineer in Informatica Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. at Bengaluru and was earning Rs. 1,69,833/- per month and opposite party No. 2/Vartika Saxena was earning Rs. 30,145/- per month.
The Trial Court after considering the earnings of both the parties directed the applicant to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as an interim maintenance to opposite party No.2/Vartika Saxena. Relevant portion of impugned order dated 14.02.2023 is extracted hereinunder:-
"यह निर्विवाद रूप से स्थापित है कि उभय पक्षों में पति पत्नी का सम्बन्ध है तथा प्रार्थिनी का एक्सीडेन्ट होने के कारण उसका इलाज चल रहा है। जिसके सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थिनी द्वारा चिकित्सीय प्रपत्रों की प्रतियाँ प्रस्तुत की गयी है तथा प्रार्थिनी द्वारा एचडीएफसी बैंक में कार्यरत होना कहा गया है तथा 35000 / रूपये वेतन प्राप्त होना कहा है जब कि विपक्षी को बंगलुरू में Informatica Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. कम्पनी में सीनियर साफटवेयर इंजीनियर के पद पर कार्यरत होना तथा उसका मासिक वेतन 1,50,000/ रूपये प्रतिमाह होना कहा गया है।
प्रार्थिनी द्वारा माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा प्रतिपादित विधि व्यवस्था किमनल अपील संख्या-730/2020 रजनेश बनाम नेहा व अन्य में पारित निर्णय दिनांकित-04.11.2020 के अनुपालन में शपथ-पत्र भी प्रस्तुत कर दिया गया है जिसमें प्रार्थिनी द्वारा स्वयं को एचडीएफसी बैंक में कार्यरत होना तथा30 हजार रूपये प्रतिमाह वेतन प्राप्त होना अभिकथित किया है तथा वेतन पर्ची के अनुसार प्रार्थिनी को रूपये 35,145/प्रतिमाह वेतन प्राप्त हो रहा है।
विपक्षी द्वारा माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा आपराधिक अपील नम्बर 730/2020 रजनेश बनाम नेहा व अन्य में दिनांक 04.11.2020 को पारित आदेश के अनुपालन में प्रस्तुत शपथपत्र में स्वयं को सीनियर साफटवेयर इंजीनियर के पद पर कार्यरत होना कहा है तथा संलग्न वेतन पर्ची के अनुसार विपक्षी को 1.69,833 / रूपये प्रतिमाह वेतन प्राप्त हो रहा है।
यघपि कि विपक्षी द्वारा यह कहा गया है कि प्रार्थिनी के पास कोई धन की कमी नहीं है तथा इलाज का सारा खर्च प्रार्थिनी को विभाग द्वारा व मेडिक्लेम पालिसी के तहत मिल रहा है। प्रार्थिनी को दुर्घटना में भारतीय एक्सा जनरल इन्शोरेन्स कम्पनी लि० से रूपये 15 लाख जिसका पालिसी नम्बर 15902290 के माध्यम से अक्टूबर 2021 को प्राप्त हुए है।
इस सम्बन्ध में यह उल्लेखनीय है कि प्रार्थिनी आपरेशन के पश्चात चलने फिरने में असमर्थ है तथा उसका इलाज चल रहा है। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की विधि व्यवस्था शैलजा व अन्य बनाम खूबन्ना ए 0आई0आर0 2017 एससी 1174 एवं सुनीता कछवाहा व अन्य बनाम अनिल कछवाहा (2014) 16 एससीसी 715 में यह अवधारित किया गया है कि यदि पत्नी अपनी जीविका के लिए कुछ आय अर्जित करती है तो उसके भरण पोषण का अधिकार समाप्त नहीं हो जायेगा अर्थात न्यायालय द्वारा इस तथ्य पर विचार किया जायेगा कि प्रार्थिनी द्वारा अर्जित आय उसके पति के जीवन स्तर के अनुकूल है या नहीं ।
अतः ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थनापत्र ग4 आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है ।
आदेश प्रार्थना-पत्र ग-4 आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह प्रार्थनापत्र प्रस्तुति की तिथि से प्रार्थिनी श्रीमती वर्तिका सक्सेना को 20,000/- रूपये (बीस हजार रूपये) प्रतिमाह अदा करेगा। जो भविष्य में इस न्यायालय के अग्रिम आदेश तक प्रत्येक माह की 10 तारीख तक अदा की जायेगी। यदि भविष्य में कोई परिवर्तित परिस्थिति प्रकाश में आती है तो इस आदेश में आवश्यकतानुसार संशोधन किया जा सकता है।
अग्रिम आदेश हेतु पत्रावली दिनांक- 17.3.2023 को प्रस्तुत हो।"
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, observed as under:-
"9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353. This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under:
"In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16)
16. "... Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner."
8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3)
3. "Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife."
9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15)
15. "... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."
10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6)
6. "... Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787]."
11.Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children".
10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India."
In the case of Chander Parkash Bodh Raj vs. Shila Rani Chander Prakash: 1968 SCC Online Del 52, the Delhi High Court has held that :
"an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able to reasonably maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 has approved the above law laid down by the Delhi High Court.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 has held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance allowance to the wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband to make the payment.
In Kalyan Dey Chaudhary Vs. Rita Dey Chaudhary Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200, the Hon'ble Apex Court has followed the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kulbhushan Kumar (supra) that 25% of net income of the husband should be paid to the wife as maintenance.
Considering the aforesaid including the admitted income of the applicant i.e. Rs. 1,69,833/- per month, and the income of opposite party No.2/Smt. Vartika Saxena, wife of applicant i.e. 35,145/- per month as also the fact, as stated, that due to accident the opposite party No.2/Smt. Vartika Saxena is unable to maintain herself from her meager salary and also the law down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the order impugned dated 14.02.2023.
Accordingly, the application is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of the order be sent to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Vinay/-